New generic_cartesian kinematics (incl. CoreXYU/CoreXYUV, generic IDEX and AWD)

Developers
21

@koconnor @dmbutyugin FYI.

test kinematics: generic_cartesian by Dmitry Butyugin

Core XYU - dual carriage + IDEX mode

Kinematics configuration

#--------------------  Motor X ----------------------------------#-
[carriage x] 
....
[stepper x]
kinematics: x+y
....
[tmc2208 stepper x]  
....

#--------------------  Motor Y ----------------------------------#-
[carriage y]
....
[stepper y]
kinematics: x-y
....
[tmc2208 stepper y]   
....

#--------------------  Motor U ----------------------------------#-
[dual_carriage u] 
primary_carriage: x
safe_distance: 35
....
[stepper u]
kinematics: u+y
....
[tmc2208 stepper u]   
....

Mechanical design of XYU belts

CoreXY+U_dual_carriage_frame
CoreXY+U_dual_carriage_frame1537Ɨ765 144 KB

22

I think the generic_cartesian kinematic saw some sufficient testing so far, and the results look very promising. So, @koconnor, Iā€™d appreciate if you took a look a the latest proposal (summarized in the first message, which I edited accordingly) when you have time and see if disagree with any of the points we debated over previously. If we can reach an agreement, I could start working on the documentation and the PR.

Also, @miklschmidt and @HelgeKeck, Iā€™d appreciate if you actually gave it a test on RatRig v4 (normal and IDEX), as this is the feature required to support these printers with mainline unmodified Klipper.

23

Sorry iā€™ve been so quiet on this, iā€™ve been absolutely swamped. Iā€™m not sure i can make the time to test this properly for at least a month or two, thereā€™s just too much going on. It looks good to me though, appreciate the effort youā€™ve put in here. Iā€™ll see if i can get an implementation out to the beta team once i get over the initial influx of new users.

@HelgeKeck is it possible you could give this a whirl in the mean time?

24

Test Core XY + Core UV - dual carriage + IDEX mode

CoreXY+UV_dual_carriage
CoreXY+UV_dual_carriage1537Ɨ819 172 KB

#-------------------  Motor X -------------------------------#

[carriage x] 
....
[stepper x]
kinematics: x+y
....

[tmc2208 stepper x]  

#-------------------  Motor Y -------------------------------#

[carriage y]
....
[stepper y]
kinematics: x-y
....
[tmc2208 stepper y]   

#-------------------  Motor U -------------------------------#

[dual_carriage u] 
primary_carriage: x
safe_distance: 35
....
[stepper u]
kinematics: u+y
....
[tmc2208 stepper u]   

#-------------------  Motor V -------------------------------#

[stepper v]
kinematics: u-y  
....
[tmc2208 stepper v]
1 Like
25

Thanks for working on this. I took a quick look at your latest config proposal, but I havenā€™t had time to look at the implementation. In general, your proposal looks like it would add useful functionality.

One minor comment Iā€™d have is on the naming of the stepper kinematics parameter. If Iā€™m understanding the proposal correctly, it effectively takes a list of carriage names. Might be better to make that more explicit in the option name. (For example, carriage_control: u+y, but Iā€™m not really sure what a good option name would be.)

FWIW, might be better to hold off on supporting that until there is a concrete use-case. The ā€œgeneric_cartesianā€ support is already going to be a challenge to document and support.

Cheers,
-Kevin

26

@koconnor @dmbutyugin FYI.

Test Dual Gantry X with dual carriage (Core XY + Core UV ) + IDEX mode

CoreXY+UV_dual_gantry
CoreXY+UV_dual_gantry1537Ɨ765 148 KB

# -----------------  Motor X -----------------------------

[carriage x] 
...

[stepper x]
kinematics: x+y
... 

[tmc2208 stepper x]  

# -----------------  Motor Y -----------------------------

[carriage y]
...

[stepper y]
kinematics: x-y
...

[tmc2208 stepper y]   

# -----------------  Motor U -----------------------------

[dual_carriage u] 
primary_carriage: x 
safe_distance: 0
...

[stepper u]
kinematics: u+v
...

[tmc2208 stepper u]   

# -----------------  Motor V -----------------------------

[dual_carriage v]
primary_carriage: y 
safe_distance: 35
...

[stepper v]
kinematics: u-v
...

[tmc2208 stepper v]
2 Likes
27

Can I just say that I love the work youā€™re doing - really interesting and Iā€™m seeing what can be done with Klipper.

1 Like
28

@koconnor , @dmbutyugin FYI

Hi,
Maybe itā€™s just my feeling but consider using the syntax:

[carriage_x]
[dual_carriage_u]
[stepper_x]

At least for me, itā€™s more natural to use including ā€œ_ā€.

-Petr

29

The space separates the module name from the instance name. Carriage is the module, and X is the instance name, as such the space makes sense both semantically and syntactically. The way klipper configuration currently works, youā€™d need a module for every single carriage, dual_carriage and stepper section if you used _ instead, and it would be different from all other sections in your config, eg [mcu host], [adxl345 toolboard], [generic_fan chamber_fan] and so on.

30

@miklschmidt

Hi
Well, it seemed more logical to me just from ā€œ_ā€.
Because currently [stepper_x], [stepper_a], [stepper_left], [stepper_bed] etc. are also used for different kinematics.

But itā€™s just a matter of getting used to it.
Iā€™m just a user not a programmer.

31

Hi @koconnor and @dmbutyugin

When could this feature be added to Klipper?

-Petr

32

Iā€™m working on the documentation and thinking about some suggestions on the naming. Right now, I took the first stab at the documentation, so everyone is welcome to check it out and share their feedback.

1 Like